Mo Ibrahim Recipients, Governance, and the IIAG

The Ibrahim Prize, the largest annually awarded prize given in the world, is meant to incentivize African heads of state to become better democratic leaders. The Ibrahim Index of African Governance, IIAG, a composite measurement, is used in a ranking order of African heads of States. This paper affirms the hypothesis- no consistent correlation between the recipients of the prize and the IIAG ranking. This finding implies that there are other more implicit, salient factors that contributed to these men receiving the award; therefore, we employ the Foundation to consider some policy implications in order to fulfill its objective of better governance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Poverty, diseases, depressed economies and poor leadership continually demoralize many sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries today. Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born, telecommunications executive, established the Mo Ibrahim Foundation in 2006 in an attempt to ameliorate these cyclical issues. The foundation seeks to “promote good government and democratic ideals in 48 SSA nations”[1].

One of its strategies, the IIAG, uses these five criteria for eligible candidates: ‘former African Executive Head of State or Government, left office in the last three years, democratically elected, served his/her constitutionally mandated term, and showed exceptional leadership in the continent’. The index is broken down into four categories: Safety & Rule of Law, Participation & Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development[2].

Since its establishment in 2007, the committee has awarded only three heads of State, not including the Honorary: President Nelson Mandela. It added its most recent recipient, fourth winner, Namibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba March 2015. This paper poses the hypothesis that there are more implicit, salient factors that contributed to the awarding of the Ibrahim prize, beyond the collective IIAG ranks. These factors resemble what the international community upholds: Democratic institutions, advocacy and progressive thinking in human rights issues, and the general welfare of their citizenry.

Lastly, we suggest some policy recommendations for the Foundation: adding varying weights to each IIAG category, making the criteria more explicit, awarding effective heads of State during their tenure instead of few years after, and lastly a consideration for the development stages of African countries. I prognosticate that these have potential to increase the number of laureates.

*Note- This paper does not address the most recent recipient, Namibian President.

IBRAHIM RECIPIENTS (LAUREATE)

CHISSANO

2007 recipient, President H.E Joaquim Alberto Chissano, Mozambique

Background & political career

The former president from 1986-2005, and a fluent speaker of five languages, Chissano is a native of Gaza province in Mozambique and the inaugural recipient of the Ibrahim Prize. He became a founding father of the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO) party. This eventually led Mozambique out of colonialism and civil war, and eventually into independence. At a critical juncture in their formative years, Chissano was fundamental in the negotiation of not only the transfer of power from the Portuguese people to the Africans, but also the terms of agreement between the rebel group and the FRELIMO. It is worth noting that Mozambique’s constitution was still in its formative years, hence no set cap on the number of terms a president could dutifully serve. When the constitution was later adopted with provision for unlimited terms served, Chissano chose to step down after serving a second term.[3] This action is one in which African heads of State notoriously refuse.

Chissano’s legacy

He led the country for the next eight years while he helped formalize a multiparty democratic system, which aided the end of the civil war in 1992. The adoption of the constitution in 1990 was the impetus for the transition into a multiparty system and an open market, and he won the first election in 1994. This engendered his international recognition, and ensued his appointment as Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for the 2005 Summit.[4] Chissano was a freedom fighter, and under his regime, “major surveys in 1997 and 2003 showed a reduction in absolute poverty from 69 percent to 54 percent, a doubling of the percentage of people within an hour of a food market, a 40 percent increase in the number of people with access to clean water, and a 23 percent increase in women’s literacy”.[5]

MOGAE

2008 recipient, President Festus Gontebanye Mogae, Botswana

Background & political career

The former president of Botswana (1998-2008), Mogae, was born in 1939 in Serowe Bostwana. An economist and politician who studied at Oxford, he was the son of a clan headman. Before his political reign, he held a position at the International Monetary Fund, IMF, and then returned home to serve as the governor of the central bank of Botswana where he worked with the then permanent secretary Masire who later became president in 1980. This strategic working relationship coupled with his credentials enabled him to secure a position as the Minister of Finance and Development Planning, and later the Vice President.

Unlike most African countries that gained independence in the 1960s, Botswana enjoyed uninterrupted democracy and stability since its independence. Bostwana was once an extractive economy. Acemoglu and Robinson share that a country makes the transition from an extractive to an inclusive economy by a confluence of factors, one of which is the broad coalition of the masses. Early on in Botswana’s history, after the colonists discovered diamonds in Botswana, and took power away from the Africans, three of the native kings paid a visit to the elite leaders. After dialogue and compromise, the elites gave some power back to the Africans, who then established a democratic political institution[6]. It was upon these grounds that Mogae and his predecessors succeeded in expanding Botswana’s influence in Africa.

Mogae’s legacy

He was awarded the Mo Ibrahim prize for his role in “maintaining and consolidating his country’s stability and prosperity. His time in office was characterized by careful stewardship of the economy and management of Botswana’s mineral resources, a tough stance on corruption, and successful policies in combating HIV/AIDS”.[7] Mogae is also known to have been a superior leader in governance and sustainability of natural resources. He is currently the Chairperson of the Coalition for Dialogue on Africa and a big proponent of decriminalizing homosexuality in Africa, as African leaders are notorious for signing bills that make homosexuality illegal.[8] A year after his completed tenure as President, Mogae was appointed as Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General on climate change.[9]

PIRES

2011 recipient, President Pedro de Verona Rodriques Pires, Cape Verde

Background & political career

Educated in Lisbon University of Sciences, Pires was elected Member of Parliament in 1974, and later served as Cape Verde’s first Prime Minister.[10] He took presidential office in 2001 and served till 2011. Prior to his tenure and contribution to Cape Verde, Pires led the delegation in the negotiation between the Portuguese government and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, securing Guinea-Bissau’s independence. A year after he returned to Cape Verde, he replicated his efforts when he negotiated independence from the Portuguese government.

Pires’ legacy

Pires received the award for his achievement in turning the small island nation into a replicable model for democracy, stability, and prosperity, and made a decision to step down from leadership. For four consistent years during his tenure, his administration sustained Cape Verde’s GDP to be above the African average.[11] His influence also reached Namibia, where he assisted in the negotiation for their independence. Even more in Angola, he negotiated the evacuation of the Cuban and South African military presence. He succeeded in setting himself apart at a time when African leaders refused to step down from political office.[12]

IBRAHIM PRIZE, INDEX & METHODOLOGY

The Ibrahim recipient receives five million US dollars over ten years and $200,000 per year thereafter.[13] The Index is a proxy measure that seeks to assess four categories of governance, Safety & Rule of Law, Participation & Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development, and provides data from 2000-2013.[14] Created by Professor Robert Rotberg, Dr Rachel Gisselquist and their team from Harvard University, this collection of data on African countries seeks to measure and assess the delivery of public goods and services and policy outcome.[15] The thirty-two independent sources of data comes from international agencies like the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, as well as African organizations like the African Development Bank.

The IIAG is a composite of 94 different indicators grouped into the four categories. A. Safety & Rule of Law: rule of law, accountability, safety and national security.

Ibrahim’s underlying belief in the establishment of his Foundation is that African heads of States must exemplify exceptional leadership in creating systematic changes allowing sectors of society to thrive.

SAFETY & RULE OF LAW

In recent times, economists have taken interest in government accountability and transparency. Certain tools like the citizen scorecard and social audit help citizens to engage with their local and federal governments, holding them accountable to their obligations. This ensures checks and balances, enhancing delivery of goods and services. Kosack and Fung suggest that the deciding factor for which approach citizens choose is contingent on a more confrontational or collaborative culture. Cultural context is a critical factor to ensure the success of utilizing these tools.[16]

Another variable is the rule of law. The Worldwide Governance Indicators has a corruption control component that is comparable to this IIAG category. Figure 1 gives us a picture of how SSA performed compared to the rest of the world, and only segments of this region score high (indicated by darker colors) on this indicator.[17]

Figure 1

PARTICIPATION & HUMAN RIGHTS

Under this category, rights and gender disparities are some main issues facing sub-Saharan Africa today. One like index is the Gender Inequality Index (GII), measuring gender equality in various sectors of society ranging from the participation in the labor market to inclusiveness in parliament. Both the IIAG and the GII pull from data published by organizations like UNICEF, the World Health Organization and the World Bank. Fig 2 shows us how SSA lagged behind in 2012.[18] This category advocates for the participation and empowerment of all persons, and non-discriminatory characteristics of free, fair elections. It employs governments to create a civil society where all persons can be civically engaged.

Figure 2

SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

In the lively discourse on the impetus of poverty reduction, economists argue that the most effective approach is to increase economic growth, and that growth inevitably trickles down to the poorest of the poor. One such approach is the Kuznet’s curve, which explains in its simplest form that at the initial onset of a country’s economic growth, there is greater income inequality, but after it reaches its peaks, the inequality decreases (Fig. 3).[19] On the opposite end is the argument that inequality is more likely to harm growth in countries with the lowest levels of income, and the negative correlation increases with higher levels of inequality. In affirming this theory, Birdsall says when inequality is too high, society lacks the motivation and incentives that leads to innovation and higher productivity, especially when only few hold the wealth.[20]

Figure 3: Kuznets Curve

These models do not necessarily take into consideration the public management and business environments for which Ibrahim advocates. The interventionists believe that there is need for the government to regulate in the market necessarily, because left to their own devices; markets do not always work efficiently.[21] More than this, the Foundation appeals to the government to be mindful of their role in the stewardship of resources and economic opportunities.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

Welfare, education and health are three factors of assessment under this category. Similar to IIAG’s human development assessment, other indicators include the Human Development Index (HDI) and the Millennium development Goals (MDGs). Nearly all eight MDGs target an improvement in welfare, education and health. Western Asian’s gap is closing in on a more rapid scale than Africa’s, and Northern Africa and Southern Asia have the greatest rises in youth literacy. The good news is that there is overall progress, however at this rate the MDG primary education goal that “children everywhere, both boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling will be unmet”.[22]

RESEARCH & FINDING

HYPOTHESIS: Are there more implicit, salient factors that contributed to the awarding of the Ibrahim prize, beyond the collective IIAG ranks?

I compare the recipient countries to the top five ranked countries during their tenure: Botswana, Cape Verde, Seychelles, South Africa and Mauritius. It turns out that there is no correlation between scoring first rank and receiving the award. Interestingly one of the recipients scored up the nineteenth rank consistently during his tenure. Mauritius ranked first every year, yet there is no clear indication as to why its head of State was not awarded the prize. It enjoys a democratic institution, and according to the Economist Intelligence unit’s annual democracy index, is the only African country with ‘full democracy.[23] Moreover, as of 2005, the government provides free transportation to all students and offers free schooling from primary to tertiary levels.[24] These are the kinds of policies the Ibrahim foundation favor. In looking at this example of Mauritius and the Ibrahim recipients aforementioned, we discover that the giving of the award is inconsistent with the ranking order. This affirms the hypothesis that there are more salient factors in which the prize committee make their selection.

Optional information

Chissano– During Chissano’s tenure, Mozambique received an average rank of 19.6

Mogae – In Mogae’s tenure, Botswana received an average rank of 2.3.

Pires – The most recent recipient, Pires received an average of 2.8.

What attributes set the recipients apart from all other African Heads of States? Others African leaders succeeded in transitioning their countries into a more democratic State, but their offenses to their citizenry, and perhaps more importantly the international community, undermined their contributions. Such offenses include a dramatized violation of human rights, allegations of embezzlement of public funds and refusal to step down from office after serving the mandated term. In stark contrast, all three Ibrahim recipients have one common thread: the positive recognition by the international community. Their effort to break out their country of the SSA stigma of disease, poverty and economic depression underscores their candidacy. They are establishers of democracy and strong advocates for human rights. They are recipients of other regional and international awards. Most have been freedom fighters, bringing their countries into independence.

INDICATOR STRENGTHS

The IIAG is one of five African governance indicators most widely used. It stands on the same platform as the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicator, WGI, and the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, CPIA. These indicators, along with the Index are increasingly used by academics, donor organizations, and multilateral agencies.[25] It is comparable across time and countries. Other strengths include its objectivity. Behavioral psychologists tell us that human judgments are normally biased and unpredictable, and are therefore unreliable as an effective, consistent policy decision-making tool. Rather they suggest we use actuarial methods, systematic assessments, because of its accuracy and predictability.[26]

INDICATOR LIMITATIONS

One of IIAG’s limitations is its measurement of sustainable economic opportunity. Its sub-categories, public management, business environment, and infrastructure and rural sector, fail to accurately measure the countries’ economic growth. Arguably, the more germane measure for developing countries is the purchasing power parity, which measures growth by looking at countries’ exchange rates, based on a fixed basket of goods and services.[27]

It is also a relative measure in that it fails to provide a true depiction of whether a country is doing well in and of itself in the various categories like life expectancy and GDP. Also the IIAG claims to be an objective measure, however some of their data sources like the Corruption Perception Index, CPI, is a subjection measure based on people’s judgments and only publically-reported data. [28] Too few local perceptions besides public workers are included, so the chance of skewed data is more likely.[29]

POLICY DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION

Of relevance to the Ibrahim prize money is Skinner’s discussion of the second category of reinforcers, the secondary. The first, the primary reinforcers, satisfy the basic human need such as water, shelter and food while the secondary ones acquire their value by its association to the primary ones. For example, money has no value to a child until the she learns that money can be used to purchase items that assuage her primary needs. There are three types of secondary reinforcements: social, activities, and token. The applicable type to discuss is the token, in this case, the Ibrahim prize money. A positive reinforcement is used to strengthen one’s behavior. SSA face many unpleasant situations and this large annual prize provides incentive for the government to lead their nation out of such dire situations. There are three main guidelines employed by users of positive reinforcement to effectively increase desired behaviors

a. Decide the particular behaviors you want changed, then reinforce those when they occur;

b. When you reinforce the behavior, tell why;

c. Reinforce appropriate behavior as soon as it occurs.

Two of the guidelines have one common ground, immediacy. In order for this token to be a more effective tool to ameliorate the circumstances in SSA, one policy implication is that the Foundation consider rewarding the leader while still in office. As a term can last up to six years, someone who serves for two terms has to wait for at least twelve years before receiving the reward. This is highly ineffective, according to Skinner’ theory.[30]

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation intends to incentivize African heads of State to exhibit exceptional leadership by giving monetary tokens. This brings up an ethical question- Is giving millions of dollars the most appropriate way to incentivize leaders in public service? Some argue, absolutely, that civil servants would by no means receive less monetary compensation, while others refute, suggesting that the public service is not for profit. Additionally, in 2013 Peter Buffet, son of Warren Buffet, gave a dissenting view in a NY Times article on the charitable industrial complex. The premise was to mention the complexity of foundations giving money to solve a problem. The problem, which at times, was caused or perpetuated by capitalism, a practice of those who establish these foundations.[31] A criticism to Mo Ibrahim is that using monetary gains as an incentive may exacerbate the problem in Africa.

As of 2013, there has only been three laureates. Why is this? Is the Foundation missing something critical in their analysis of worthy candidates that is immeasurable? One criticism of the Foundation is that making decisions solely based on quantitative data can be misleading. Consider a local parallel situation. The achievement gap between students of color and Caucasians is increasing nation-wide and certainly in Washington State. In the Washington State 2012 report, the Caucasian students graduated 3% higher than the state average, while students of color fell much further below the average rate. [32] American universities are now reassessing their method of evaluating and admitting students as they move beyond quantitative analysis like GPA and standardized test scores. A recent study showed that GPA was the most critical indicator predicting student success when used specifically for Caucasian students. However when looking at students of color, the number one predictor was grit, measured by resilience and persistency. The more the barriers, the more ‘grit’ was evidenced to be the salient reason in achieving success.[33] If students of color were only evaluated quantitatively, the U.S. would miss a significant number of students with great potential. To make a point, I liken sub-Saharan Africa to students of color because a common thread is that both subsets were at some point oppressed by an external force: colonialism and slavery, respectively. Although it is clear that the Ibrahim prize committee’s choice of candidate is not reflective of the IIAG ranking, they should also consider their grading metrics. Does their measurement take into consideration a semblance of ‘grit’ in the overall rubric? This may ensure a more comprehensive analysis of African heads of State.

Are we comparing African countries against the same standards with that of developed countries? The United States has enjoyed democratic elections for over two hundred and twenty-five years, while some of these SSA countries, only the last two-three decades. [34] The implication of this potentially inequitable standard is that we neglect to recognize the drastic improvements some of these African leaders oversaw during their tenure. The faculty of what a developed country attains in comparison to that of a SSA country can be likened to a development of an adult versus an adolescent. Both have intrinsic, latent capabilities, though the achievements and expressions of those capabilities can at times be incomparable. Given the continuous streak of not awarding the Ibrahim prize, this leads me to call to question the Ibrahim criteria and the IIAG as an effectiveness model used to evaluate African leaders and its government. Paul Kagame’s respectability is engendered in the development of Rwanda since its twenty-year rebirth post genocide. Arguably Rwanda has thrived under his leadership. Suppose the country needs more time under his leadership beyond his mandated term, is it more appropriate for Kagame to step down if Rwanda isn’t ready to fill that vacuum with the right person? Are these considerations of which the Foundation should be cognizant? Are there exceptions in African governance that the Foundation must bear in mind, given the region’s early stage of development? Perhaps the leaders should be evaluated based on the development and equitable structures they put in place rather than on the same criteria and standards of the developed world.

The underlying weight given to each category by which the prize committee elects their recipients is very implicit. There seems to be more weight given to leaders who endured significant strides in human rights issues. The Foundation needs to consider making their criteria more explicit by adding weights to each category, similar to the Resource Governance Index put forth by Revenue Watch Institute[35]

FINAL THOUGHTS

Harriman Bruce presents an executive leadership practice of making change in an organization, in this case a political, social, and economic institution. One such example is sending strong messages to one’s subordinates, messages that imbue the entire institution.[36] One signal Mogae employed was to speak avidly on the issue of HIV/AIDS and appropriated funds to programs that supported this cause, especially when the region suffered severely from this epidemic. Chissano advocated for the empowerment of women and youth, and reproductive health issues[37] and Pires stepped down when all others did not. The foundation should encourage leaders in their ability to send such strong messages to their people.

If the Mo Ibrahim Foundation continues using this large amount of money to incentivize African heads of State to use their power constructively, it is imperative that they not only explicitly lay out the more salient characteristics of what makes an exceptional executive leader, but they make it more robust by adding a short list of anomalies in which they would make an aberration when considering a nominee.

Historically most past winners have been freedom fighters, but in the near future this attribute will be obsolete as African countries live longer in their independence stage of development. For this reason, the other salient factors will become even more extinguishable, and perhaps the most will be popularity with the international community. I thereby prognosticate that should Paul Kagame of Rwanda continue making strides as he currently is, when he steps down from serving his mandated term, he will win the award. This is due to his constant admonition to other African countries, and he made tremendous headway in bringing Rwanda from genocide to stability and current economic development. He is, however, a controversial figure in alleged reports of oppressing those with dissenting political views. This may be enough to disqualify him from candidacy.

An example of an aberration would be considering the candidacy of Kagame should Rwandese voluntarily elect him for an additional term. The controversy over this issue is whether it is right in nation building for Kagame to remain in office if a successor is ill equipped to lead the country. For Rwanda 2016 is crucial.

With all I’ve mentioned in this paper, I also must state that I revere the Foundation’s efforts in rewarding good governance in Africa, and rightly so because Africa is in critical need of good leadership. Regardless of whether or not this is the most effective incentive or systematic way of assessment; at least they are doing something! They are investing substantial amounts of resources to see Africa come to its fullest potential, and even more admirable is their coalescing efforts with other international partners to see Africans rise above the status quo. Praises to Ibrahim Foundation.

FURTHER RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Analyzing the IIAG brought up potential areas of further research to better understand its use and the implications of the criteria adapted to pick recipients.

How strong is the IIAG in comparison to other comparable indicators like the Human Development Index (HDI), Corruption Transparency International (CPI) and the Rule of Law index.

Why did no one receive this award in years 2009, 2012 and 2013?

Why were other freedom fighters like Jomo Kenyetta, and Julius Nyerere not acclaimed as honorary recipients since they were two of Africa’s most venerable figures, and significant in the establishment of their countries.

“Millennium Development Goals and beyond,” last modified September 2013, MDG Report, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf; Also figure 3.

APJ 2017-2018 Edition

Follow us on Twitter

Categories

About Us

The Harvard Africa Policy Journal (APJ) is a student-run online publication dedicated to promoting dialogue about African policy and current affairs in the realms of governance, law, education, business, health, design and culture. The Journal was initially started in 2006 by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government but has recently expanded to encompass all the schools of Harvard University. With its new online platform and annual publications, the APJ will act as a hub for timely debate, opinion, research, and analysis.